How do we stop "the poor" from being so problematic?

[Mac1958]

The list of reasons is long, and we can choose to punish the entire group because of the laziness of some. Or we can recognize that a society as rich and abundant as ours doesn't have to let people fall through the cracks and suffer, that we're simply better than that.

Actually there is a third option, and that is give help to people who truly need it--not because it's a better option than working or taking responsibility for yourself.

You're not going to find many Americans left or right that don't want to see the needy helped. Our problem is that our government has such weak standard of who gets help that it outrages many of us who are paying that bill.

A personal example: I have a HUD house next door to me. I get up every morning and go to work so I can live in the suburbs. Why is it I'm supporting people that don't work to live right next door to me? I see them out there; the four kids, the three mini-vans........ Do you know what I drive? I drive a 2009 Toyota Camry with 90,000 miles on it. I get 30 MPG on average. I would love to have a mini-van or a 4 wheel drive pickup truck, but I can only afford one vehicle. How is it the lowlifes next door have three gas guzzling vehicles that I'm supporting?

This is not an isolated incident. In fact, it's pretty common. If not HUD people next door, it's the food stamp people at the grocery store. If not the food stamp people at the grocery store, it's talking to people at work who use temp services and can't get them to work overtime because it will interfere with their SNAP's allowance from the government.

It's my opinion that most of our problems are cultural at their foundation, and this issue is certainly an example. We're not going to fix (or even improve) it by looking at it from only one of the sides I mentioned in my original post. When a problem is culturally-based, it's a hell of a lot tougher to address.

We could choose instead to find a proper and effective equilibrium between the two approaches. But that would require far more effort, humility, honesty and cooperation than is currently "allowed" by either "side". In fact, I could posit that the two "sides" are demonstrating their OWN laziness by avoiding that effort.

One more thing: I compare the leadership of the two sides to parenting. Liberals are animated by their maternal side - "here, let me help, let me take care of you" - and conservatives are animated by their paternal side - "come on, pull yourself up by your bootstraps". A child is best raised by two committed parents willing to put in the hard work.
.

Is it really the job of the federal government to do this? I don't think so. I think the job of the federal government is to govern.

Our federal government is not supposed to be surrogate parents. Our founders never intended that nor did they design our government to be that. You want to see cultural change? Don't feed them. You'll see that change you're looking for. If they know that taxpayers won't take care of their babies, they will quit having those babies.

Well, it's ultimately the job of the federal government to do what we tell it to do, through the vote.

You'd get no argument from me that the federal government can be terribly inefficient, and that it's best used as a backstop rather than a primary tool. That's why this can only be done through the culture, to decrease the cultural, inter-generational demand for government services.

And yeah, that's some pretty freaking heavy lifting. But we have to consider where things are - we've created this mess ourselves, and if the GOP wants to remain in power, simply taking things away from people will only result in electoral losses and the ability to do anything to change this. Knee-jerking is bad politics.
.

 

[danielpalos]

don't complain; be Patriotic.

There is nothing "patriotic" about communism. Patriotism would be if your selfish and greedy ass paid more to the IRS than required to help pay down the national debt because you care about the United States. That would be true patriotism. But you won't do that because you're selfish and greedy. You're a true hatriot.

You misunderstand the concept, like usual.

Providing for the general welfare is in our Constitution. Providing for the common offense or general warfare is not.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

He didn't save the auto industry, BMW, Toyota etc....made in America was doing fine he "saved" GMs pension fund.

The redstate governors are the ones that put people back to work. Obama's policies slowed it down with the uncertainty of Obama care, the 30 hour work week with Obama care, Obama trying to prevent jobs / Boeing from opening up a plant in South Carolina, trying to crush industries /jobs with the EPA...



.



.

LMAO the only thing red state governors have ever put back to work is abortion protestors and soup kitchen workers

It must be nice playing ignorant, stupid and a democrat sheep huh?



Auto industry expansion across South Carolina causing economic tidal wave
Friday’s announcement that Mercedes-Benz’s parent company will pump a half-billion dollars into a new Lowcountry van-making plant – coupled with the prospect of a huge Volvo factory in the vicinity – will send an economic tsunami across the entire state, experts say.


By JEFF WILKINSON -jwilkinson@thestate.com

• 
  
  
• 
  
  
• 
  
  
• • LINKEDIN
  • GOOGLE+
  • PINTEREST
  • REDDIT
  • ORDER REPRINT OF THIS STORY

Friday’s announcement that Mercedes-Benz’s parent company will pump a half-billion dollars into a new Lowcountry van-making plant – coupled with the prospect of a huge Volvo factory in the vicinity – will send an economic tsunami across the entire state, experts say.

There are 401 companies in South Carolina that produce automotive parts, according to the S.C. Department of Commerce. That’s up from 305 in 2008. And each could profit from new automakers.


Read more here: Auto industry expansion across South Carolina causing economic tidal wave

But if obama pumps money into industries to bail them out then its throwing money away, not the fed government job, non effective, corporate welfare, wasn't necessary... okay dude.

What doesn't have to do with your ignorant propaganda that redstate governors were not the ones to bring in the jobs?



.

party economics is simple. Under dem administrations- unemployment drop, wages raise, economy flourishes. Under repub admins- unemployment skyrockets, wages stagnant, economy crashes.

That is true if you believe that President has that kind of power or control. If you dig a little deeper, you find that it's Congress behind those accomplishment since it's Congress that writes the laws, passes the taxation, and spends our money.

 

[danielpalos]

We are not animals to be fed scraps at your pleasure.

Want to bet? The U.S. Constitution says otherwise. It says that you are not entitled to my labor. It says that we outlawed slavery and you don't get to force me to labor on your behalf. It says you are an "animal" to be fed "scraps" at my "pleasure".

If you don't like it - you are always free to move to Cuba, or Cambodia, or Greece, or any other socialist shithole nation that collapsed under the weight of the idiot communism you advocate for.

Congress is delegated the social Power to Tax, in Article 1, Section 8.

don't complain; be Patriotic.

 

[P@triot]

party economics is simple.

Party economics is simple...Detroit had to file bankruptcy after 65 years of complete utopian control by which party? The Democrats!

California is somewhere between $400 billion and $2 trillion in debt after control by which party? The Democrats!

 

[Aries]

The list of reasons is long, and we can choose to punish the entire group because of the laziness of some. Or we can recognize that a society as rich and abundant as ours doesn't have to let people fall through the cracks and suffer, that we're simply better than that.

Actually there is a third option, and that is give help to people who truly need it--not because it's a better option than working or taking responsibility for yourself.

You're not going to find many Americans left or right that don't want to see the needy helped. Our problem is that our government has such weak standard of who gets help that it outrages many of us who are paying that bill.

A personal example: I have a HUD house next door to me. I get up every morning and go to work so I can live in the suburbs. Why is it I'm supporting people that don't work to live right next door to me? I see them out there; the four kids, the three mini-vans........ Do you know what I drive? I drive a 2009 Toyota Camry with 90,000 miles on it. I get 30 MPG on average. I would love to have a mini-van or a 4 wheel drive pickup truck, but I can only afford one vehicle. How is it the lowlifes next door have three gas guzzling vehicles that I'm supporting?

This is not an isolated incident. In fact, it's pretty common. If not HUD people next door, it's the food stamp people at the grocery store. If not the food stamp people at the grocery store, it's talking to people at work who use temp services and can't get them to work overtime because it will interfere with their SNAP's allowance from the government.

It's my opinion that most of our problems are cultural at their foundation, and this issue is certainly an example. We're not going to fix (or even improve) it by looking at it from only one of the sides I mentioned in my original post. When a problem is culturally-based, it's a hell of a lot tougher to address.

We could choose instead to find a proper and effective equilibrium between the two approaches. But that would require far more effort, humility, honesty and cooperation than is currently "allowed" by either "side". In fact, I could posit that the two "sides" are demonstrating their OWN laziness by avoiding that effort.

One more thing: I compare the leadership of the two sides to parenting. Liberals are animated by their maternal side - "here, let me help, let me take care of you" - and conservatives are animated by their paternal side - "come on, pull yourself up by your bootstraps". A child is best raised by two committed parents willing to put in the hard work.
.

Is it really the job of the federal government to do this? I don't think so. I think the job of the federal government is to govern.

Our federal government is not supposed to be surrogate parents. Our founders never intended that nor did they design our government to be that. You want to see cultural change? Don't feed them. You'll see that change you're looking for. If they know that taxpayers won't take care of their babies, they will quit having those babies.

if you're banking on poor people having less babies to save our economy, better make sure poor women have adequate access to healthcare, birth control, plan b, and yes, abortions.

 

[danielpalos]

don't complain; be Patriotic.

There is nothing "patriotic" about communism. Patriotism would be if your selfish and greedy ass paid more to the IRS than required to help pay down the national debt because you care about the United States. That would be true patriotism. But you won't do that because you're selfish and greedy. You're a true hatriot.

Patriotism is employers paying a living wage.

Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour by comparison.

Socializing costs helps the private sector lower costs to meet "performance" objectives for bonus purposes.

 

[danielpalos]

How do we keep the poor from being so "problematic?" We higher minimum wage, provide universal health care, and make education affordable again.

JFK is rolling over in his grave right now. The left rejects everything he stood for and instead now has perverted that into the selfish, greedy, and disgusting:

"Ask not...what you can do for your country. Ask what your country can do for you"

You are out of touch with the problems our poor face. They need a living wage, access to a doctor, and an education to become contributing members of society. All things rich kids are handed to from mommy and daddy.

the right wing only has propaganda and rhetoric; not any form of true faith in capitalism.

 

[danielpalos]

Do tell why all these 13M are poor. Do they all suffer from handicaps and mental illnesses that prevent them from working? Do they all have families who apparently shit on them and threw them out for the trouble?

Nay, far more likely they've made stupid decisions, similar to my son's, in trying to live a lifestyle that their paycheck cannot provide, or worse, those who turned to crime rather than commit themselves to a "proper" life.

I feel no obligation to support those who make stupid decisions in their life, especially when I believe, and am regularly told, that I've no right to tell someone how to live. To clarify, I've no problem with them doing as they wish, right up until they start reaching in my wallet to pay for their choices.

If the fools need more money, then they best get off their asses and earn it. There is nothing preventing them from finding a second job so they can have that unlimited cell phone plan, there is nothing preventing them from taking on a 2h a day paper route to pay for whatever it is they feel is holding them back from success...

Capitalism has a poverty inducing, natural rate of unemployment.

 

[danielpalos]

How do we keep the poor from being so "problematic?" We higher minimum wage, provide universal health care, and make education affordable again.

Here is how...

View attachment 120844

American workers pay 72% of IRS collection, corporations pay 12%. Who isn't 'pulling his weight?'

End the Work Tax; only artificial Persons should have to work and pay tax in modern times.

 

[Mac1958]

Capitalism has a poverty inducing, natural rate of unemployment.

What system doesn't?
.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The list of reasons is long, and we can choose to punish the entire group because of the laziness of some. Or we can recognize that a society as rich and abundant as ours doesn't have to let people fall through the cracks and suffer, that we're simply better than that.

Actually there is a third option, and that is give help to people who truly need it--not because it's a better option than working or taking responsibility for yourself.

You're not going to find many Americans left or right that don't want to see the needy helped. Our problem is that our government has such weak standard of who gets help that it outrages many of us who are paying that bill.

A personal example: I have a HUD house next door to me. I get up every morning and go to work so I can live in the suburbs. Why is it I'm supporting people that don't work to live right next door to me? I see them out there; the four kids, the three mini-vans........ Do you know what I drive? I drive a 2009 Toyota Camry with 90,000 miles on it. I get 30 MPG on average. I would love to have a mini-van or a 4 wheel drive pickup truck, but I can only afford one vehicle. How is it the lowlifes next door have three gas guzzling vehicles that I'm supporting?

This is not an isolated incident. In fact, it's pretty common. If not HUD people next door, it's the food stamp people at the grocery store. If not the food stamp people at the grocery store, it's talking to people at work who use temp services and can't get them to work overtime because it will interfere with their SNAP's allowance from the government.

It's my opinion that most of our problems are cultural at their foundation, and this issue is certainly an example. We're not going to fix (or even improve) it by looking at it from only one of the sides I mentioned in my original post. When a problem is culturally-based, it's a hell of a lot tougher to address.

We could choose instead to find a proper and effective equilibrium between the two approaches. But that would require far more effort, humility, honesty and cooperation than is currently "allowed" by either "side". In fact, I could posit that the two "sides" are demonstrating their OWN laziness by avoiding that effort.

One more thing: I compare the leadership of the two sides to parenting. Liberals are animated by their maternal side - "here, let me help, let me take care of you" - and conservatives are animated by their paternal side - "come on, pull yourself up by your bootstraps". A child is best raised by two committed parents willing to put in the hard work.
.

Is it really the job of the federal government to do this? I don't think so. I think the job of the federal government is to govern.

Our federal government is not supposed to be surrogate parents. Our founders never intended that nor did they design our government to be that. You want to see cultural change? Don't feed them. You'll see that change you're looking for. If they know that taxpayers won't take care of their babies, they will quit having those babies.

Well, it's ultimately the job of the federal government to do what we tell it to do, through the vote.

You'd get no argument from me that the federal government can be terribly inefficient, and that it's best used as a backstop rather than a primary tool. That's why this can only be done through the culture, to decrease the cultural, inter-generational demand for government services.

And yeah, that's some pretty freaking heavy lifting. But we have to consider where we are - we've created this mess ourselves, and simply taking things away from people will only result in electoral losses and the ability to do anything to change this. Knee-jerking is bad politics.
.

It's not the job of the federal government to "do what we tell it to do." The job of the federal government is laid out in the US Constitution. The US Constitution tells our federal government what they are to do.

As for government goodies, it's what I call Ray from Cleveland's raccoon theory.

You see a hungry raccoon digging through a garbage can with no success, so you go in the house and fetch him a nice meaty ham bone. You give the raccoon the bone and he dines in delight. Now try taking that bone back from him and see what happens.

This is not some genius I came up with on my own. Democrat politicians have known about this theory for decades, and they've used it to gain power and control over the people. So what's the solution? You have to go in there and yank that bone away from the raccoon and get bit a few times. It's the only solution.

 

[danielpalos]

You have to wonder how rich the rich would be if the poor weren't doing all the work for the rich in the first place.

The rich do all of the work. Bill Gates put in more hours in one month than the janitors at Microsoft put in, in a year. And that's a fact. At his peak - Gates would go 4 days at a time at Microsoft before going home. 4 days in a row of sleeping in his office for just a few short hours before getting back to work before he would go home and sleep in his own bed for a night.

You people have no idea what the ultra successful put in. The average is 16 hours per day. That's the average. Some - like Gates - do more.

dear, the rich merely make more in a day than their janitors or secretaries do in a year.

 

[P@triot]

Congress is delegated the social Power to Tax, in Article 1, Section 8.

Taxes can only be used to run the government (i.e. the 18 enumerated powers delegated to them by the states in the U.S. Constitution).

• Food stamps, Welfare, Medicaid, etc. are not one of those 18 enumerated powers

• Furthermore, what service are these recipients providing to me for my tax dollars? When I pay the military, I get defense. When I pay the courts, I get a justice system. That's how taxes work, snowflake. I'm paying for a service. So what service are welfare recipients providing me for my money?

Don't get frustrated; get educated

 

[P@triot]

dear, the rich merely make more in a day than their janitors or secretaries do in a year.

As they should...

 

[danielpalos]

It can barely be done, certainly not easy for lets say, a single mother. I don't think any American working 40 hours a week should be below the line of poverty.

tough shit. The stupid belief that small business owners, who DO work more than forty a week, should pay their unskilled workers more than they earn themselves is the height of fiscal stupidity. You morons who want others to subsidize the stupidity of others should finance that shit yourselves. Adopt an inner city single mom with five kids who can't read or speak like a human and who has never stayed at any job for more than two weeks, and giver her your paycheck when she starts working as a babysitter for other welfare moms so they can attend their required welfare jobs classes. I hope you make a lot of money, because she needs quite a bit, with five kids, to earn above the poverty level.

what stupid douches progressives are.

I work for a large company who could certainly afford to pay everyone a living wage and then some. They just don't have to.

That's exactly correct. Nobody pays more than they have to for labor. Your company doesn't, I don't, you don't. Most of us don't.

And that has proven to keep too many Americans under the line of poverty.

No, the solution to going over the line of poverty is to gain better paying employment, or work enough hours to not be in poverty.

How well did that work in 1929, when Hoover was promoting laissez-fair?

 

[danielpalos]

Pay needs to rise in proportion to the rise of living costs.

Why, and by whom?

The minimum wage should always be favorably competitive with the alternative cost of social services.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The list of reasons is long, and we can choose to punish the entire group because of the laziness of some. Or we can recognize that a society as rich and abundant as ours doesn't have to let people fall through the cracks and suffer, that we're simply better than that.

Actually there is a third option, and that is give help to people who truly need it--not because it's a better option than working or taking responsibility for yourself.

You're not going to find many Americans left or right that don't want to see the needy helped. Our problem is that our government has such weak standard of who gets help that it outrages many of us who are paying that bill.

A personal example: I have a HUD house next door to me. I get up every morning and go to work so I can live in the suburbs. Why is it I'm supporting people that don't work to live right next door to me? I see them out there; the four kids, the three mini-vans........ Do you know what I drive? I drive a 2009 Toyota Camry with 90,000 miles on it. I get 30 MPG on average. I would love to have a mini-van or a 4 wheel drive pickup truck, but I can only afford one vehicle. How is it the lowlifes next door have three gas guzzling vehicles that I'm supporting?

This is not an isolated incident. In fact, it's pretty common. If not HUD people next door, it's the food stamp people at the grocery store. If not the food stamp people at the grocery store, it's talking to people at work who use temp services and can't get them to work overtime because it will interfere with their SNAP's allowance from the government.

It's my opinion that most of our problems are cultural at their foundation, and this issue is certainly an example. We're not going to fix (or even improve) it by looking at it from only one of the sides I mentioned in my original post. When a problem is culturally-based, it's a hell of a lot tougher to address.

We could choose instead to find a proper and effective equilibrium between the two approaches. But that would require far more effort, humility, honesty and cooperation than is currently "allowed" by either "side". In fact, I could posit that the two "sides" are demonstrating their OWN laziness by avoiding that effort.

One more thing: I compare the leadership of the two sides to parenting. Liberals are animated by their maternal side - "here, let me help, let me take care of you" - and conservatives are animated by their paternal side - "come on, pull yourself up by your bootstraps". A child is best raised by two committed parents willing to put in the hard work.
.

Is it really the job of the federal government to do this? I don't think so. I think the job of the federal government is to govern.

Our federal government is not supposed to be surrogate parents. Our founders never intended that nor did they design our government to be that. You want to see cultural change? Don't feed them. You'll see that change you're looking for. If they know that taxpayers won't take care of their babies, they will quit having those babies.

if you're banking on poor people having less babies to save our economy, better make sure poor women have adequate access to healthcare, birth control, plan b, and yes, abortions.

I'm all behind birth control for welfare people. In fact, if it were up to me, it would be a requirement. You don't get one red cent until you are fixed first when you apply for any kind of welfare. If you are a male, same thing. No money until you get a vasectomy.

 

[danielpalos]

Pay needs to rise in proportion to the rise of living costs.

The "cost of living" only rises because the left continues to increase minimum wage which causes everyone to raise their prices to cover the new labor costs (which results in the minimal wage worker being no further ahead). It's a vicious cycle of stupidity which could only come from the left.

Inflation happens; Henry Ford doubled autoworker wages to beat inflation.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

don't complain; be Patriotic.

There is nothing "patriotic" about communism. Patriotism would be if your selfish and greedy ass paid more to the IRS than required to help pay down the national debt because you care about the United States. That would be true patriotism. But you won't do that because you're selfish and greedy. You're a true hatriot.

You misunderstand the concept, like usual.

Providing for the general welfare is in our Constitution. Providing for the common offense or general warfare is not.

Providing for the general welfare isn't in the Constitution.